BetaNet Sues Everyone For Remote SW Activation 227
eldavojohn writes "Not to be out patent trolled by Eolas, a mystery company named 'BetaNet, LLC' is suing: Adobe Systems, Inc, Apple, Inc., Arial Software, LLC, Autodesk, Inc.,, CARBONITE, INC., Corel Corp., Eastman Kodak Co., International Business Machines Corp., Intuit, Inc., Microsoft Corp., McAfee, Inc., Oracle Corp., Rockwell Automation, Inc., Rosetta Stone, Inc., SAP America, Inc., Siemens Corp. and Sony Creative Software, Inc. for infringement of their patent entitled Secure system for activating personal computer software at remote locations. And of course, this was filed in our favoritest of favorite places: Marshall, TX (Texas Eastern District Court)."
Good (Score:1, Insightful)
This is good. Our politicians are far too fucking stupid to establish how misguided our current patent and copyright system is without being intellectually bludgeoned. The more egregiously bad consequences of the current system we have to endure, the better. In the long run.
Re:The mostest (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Marshall, TX (Score:5, Insightful)
Judges do not make the laws, they simply settle disputes with laws already made. It would be a gross violation of their judicial power were they to legislate from the bench ( which many attempt anyway ).
Regardless, if you want to know why this particular area houses so many of these types of disputes, follow the money. They wouldn't do it if they weren't benefiting financially somehow.
Re:Marshall, TX (Score:4, Insightful)
More likely, the judges in question take their popularity as an indication that they're doing the right thing, and keep at it.
IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
. . . they have a mighty frighteningly patent portfolio. If someone crops up, and slaps a ten page patent on their desk, claiming infringement . . . IBM slams a stack of patents the size of 50 Manhattan telephone books on their heads, and says, "Well, let's take a look at YOUR infringements."
It's all part of the patent game that corporations play today. Patent trolls can shake down small companies, but not the big ones.
Re:Marshall, TX (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely at some point the judge/judges in that small corner of Texas should, if they're not idiots or in league with these trolls, realize that the reason they're getting so many patent lawsuits filed in their jurisdiction is because they're considered to be overly in favor of the people who are suing?
If I may opine my nonprofessional perspective from the software field, patents (and really the copyrighting/property concept applied to ideas in general) are a fuzzy field of law. Meaning that in most of the cases, the common sense rule doesn't work. I mean that if you approached a large number of citizens, their response could vary depending on their political direction, their previous personal experiences with companies or even how you present the case. You'll notice that I came out in this summary screaming--in a very nonprofessional way--that BetaNet is a patent troll. Makes it obvious who to side with, right? But given the letter of the law, it's not that simple. Given United States legal code, there are cases when patent litigation is the answer (in my opinion rarely if ever in software but that's another topic altogether).
Now, if you can establish that it's a hazy field and outcomes are tied to differences in regions of the United States, you can also establish that there will always be a local maximum for percentages of cases awarded one way or the other. That's why Marshall, TX is so popular for the trolls. And if Marshall, TX had a mission statement tomorrow to shut down patent trolls from the get go then the next statistic maximum would be your preferred place of patent trolling.
What disappoints me most about Eastern Texas' Courts is that they don't say, "What the hell is this doing in my courtroom? Neither of you claim offices here or even do business here so go back to where one of you operate." Sometimes this happens but really I think this needs to be done more often. In my opinion, the solution isn't to stop Marshall, TX; it's to fix the patent system.
Re:IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahhh, but these patent trolls don't actually produce anything. They can't be violating anyone else's patents, unless a business method patent for patent trolling has been granted by the USPTO. They have nothing to lose but the time of their (presumably on-staff) lawyers. It's a speculative cash generation business for lawyers, and nothing more. They buy a few patents (or as many as they can for the capitol they raise from their investors), then turn around and sue everyone they can find. The payouts are so large that they need only hit once every few years to make a profit. There is no down side, except to come up completely empty and lose the investor's money. That's fairly unlikely when you take a shotgun approach, especially if you can hit small companies first with enough to pay back your initial investment.
Filed in Nov., 1990 (Score:5, Insightful)
Filed in Nov., 1990, and they're just noticing these alleged "infringements" now, 19 years later? So, they waited until just before 20 years were up in order to submarine this and collect big. This is the kind of douchebag move is exactly why the laches defense exists. The execs of BetaNet deserve to have their collective asses handed to them.
Re:Marshall, TX (Score:4, Insightful)
Judges do not make the laws, they simply settle disputes with laws already made. It would be a gross violation of their judicial power were they to legislate from the bench ( which many attempt anyway ).
I agree, even though some (not saying you, but some) use the "legislating from the bench" argument when a judge rules contrary to their opinion even though the law can reasonably be interpreted that way. But that's a different thread...
Still, it is awfully suspicious that patent trolls seem to be significantly more successful in East Texas compared to other District Courts. Patent issues are Constitutionally a Federal issue, so there's no legal reason for this one court to consistently rule contrary to the Federal standard for patent infringement. Perhaps a higher court should hear an appeal from one of this court's patent infringement cases and make precedent whether they are really following the law or simply "legislating from the bench."
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
They are NOT stupid. They are corrupt. The voting positions of politicians are based almost entirely on campaign contributions, not on any moral or logical consideration. That is why I feel that modifying campaign finance laws so that you can only give money to a candidate for whom you can cast a vote would go a long ways toward cleaning up this mess. This would mean that corporations and unions and foreign individuals could no longer contribute to any candidate because those entities cannot cast a vote.
Re:Good (Score:1, Insightful)
But.... The very ones that have the power to change the law are the ones that are corrupt. So what is the chance that this will happen any time soon? Sigh.....
I say we... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Or we give Texas back to Mexico with a no backsies clause.
Re:Qualification to be on Jury for patent case (Score:3, Insightful)
To be allowed to do most of the things in this world, you have to meet some qualifications. How come that people can sit on Jury which sometimes deal with multi $100Ms verdicts without understanding anything about problems involved? Most of patent cases are based on "prior art" or luck of it. You have to be able to understand a LOT of things to be able to see that something was (or was not) prior art. I am sure that Marshal, TX is wonderful city, but I have serious doubts that it has many citizens who are up to speed with all modern technologies to be able to serve efficiently on Jury bench in all these patent cases
Because the Constitution doesn't require a jury of skilled experts. In criminal cases, do we require everyone on the jury to have a conviction on their record?
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
This would mean that corporations and unions and foreign individuals could no longer contribute to any candidate because those entities cannot cast a vote.
It's already illegal. Corporations are barred from donating to any specific candidate... BUT they can donate all they want to a party fund.
That doesn't prevent it from happening....Members of those organizations can donate, so corporations tent to find a way to make sure their members "volunteer" to donate all that money. It's been done before, it'll be done again.
Example [wtopnews.com].
Re:Marshall, TX (Score:5, Insightful)
>Judges do not make the laws, they simply settle disputes with laws already made.
These are FEDERAL laws. They are the same everywhere in the US. There's no special federal law for Texas. In other words, the judges are legislating from the bench already by interpreting these laws as more favorable to the patent trolls under the guise of a pro-business conservative mentality. They are legislating from the bench with their local mentalities, local court rules, and quick and dirty fast trials.
Re:Marshall, TX (Score:2, Insightful)
"Judges do not make the laws, they simply settle disputes with laws already made."
In an idea world. In an ideal world, all would be equal before the law, regardless of financial power. In an ideal world, judges would be truly independent of the executive branch, as opposed to being cherry picked due to having a history of toeing the line. In an ideal world, the legal system would be transparent to everyone with or without a legal degree.
In *this* world, however, judges serve the interests of the political parties that appointed them, making them in turn subservient to the elite who control the political process.
Re:Marshall, TX (Score:5, Insightful)
Still, it is awfully suspicious that patent trolls seem to be significantly more successful in East Texas compared to other District Courts. Patent issues are Constitutionally a Federal issue, so there's no legal reason for this one court to consistently rule contrary to the Federal standard for patent infringement. Perhaps a higher court should hear an appeal from one of this court's patent infringement cases and make precedent whether they are really following the law or simply "legislating from the bench."
This paragraph does not make a lick of sense. The court in question is the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. It is a federal court hearing matters of federal patent law. And like all federal courts, its decisions are appealable to a Federal Court of Appeals. And since federal patent law is such a specialized area, Congress even gave us a special Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [uscourts.gov], which hears all patent appeals and sets precedent. The CAFC has heard LOTS of cases from the Eastern District of Texas, and has reversed when they felt it was necessary.
Seriously, reading a patent thread on Slashdot is like watching a couple of MBAs argue heatedly about whether it's better to write Linux drivers in AJAX or SCSI.
Re:Qualification to be on Jury for patent case (Score:2, Insightful)
However, one of the basic principles of the law is "the right to a trial with a jury of your peers". If you sue a corporation over software patents then the jury should be made up of people who understand software, patents and all the complexities. Those are the "peers".
And when wealthy white men are up on charges of investment fraud, the jury should be made up solely of other wealthy white men. And when a racist white southerner is up on charges of lynching a black guy, the jury should be made up solely of other racist white southerners. And when an illegal immigrant is up on charges of illegal immigration, the jury should be made up solely of other illegal immigrants.
I think I see a flaw in your cunning plan.
Re:Marshall, TX (Score:3, Insightful)
Federal laws vary by circuit, across the US.
The Acts of Congress, treaties, and other such primary sources of law are of course all the same. However, they aren't always clear (Congress is not enjoined to write only unambiguous laws, for example, and creative ambiguity is sometimes necessary to get a law passed), and in that case the interpretation is set by the Court. If a case goes to the Supreme Court, the precedent is binding anywhere in the US.
However, if two Circuit Courts interpret an unclear Act of Congress differently, and the Supreme Court doesn't receive or hear an appeal from either, then there is binding precedent in both circuits, and the law is hence different in each circuit.
Re:Marshall, TX (Score:3, Insightful)
There are several problems with this argument:
(1) The fact that two judges would apply the same law differently even to cases with exactly identical fact patterns does not mean that one is "legislating from the bench" -- law is not so precise as to admit only one interpretation of how it applies to specific facts,
(2) Additionally, there is different federal law in different federal districts, because case law is law, and which precedent is binding varies by district, and
(3) Further, a district court or judge may be a more favorable venue for reasons other than the substantive legal rules it applies; procedure matters, and within certain bounds the processes and procedures applied in federal courts can --given the discretion granted to the district courts and individual judges under federal law -- vary, and
(4) Finally, even if all the above wasn't true, and the difference in results had to indicate that some judge was "legislating from the bench", that doesn't meant the one whose results you like the least is the one doing that.